It is easy for a non-expert to be swayed by a credible sounding narrative that claims to overthrow a scientific consensus. For a scientist it is generally clear which arguments are valid, but the general public can’t independently evaluate scientific evidence. Scientist Victor Venema provides answers to a number of concerns about climate science raised by cartoonist Scott Adams. His answers are accessible and illuminating, and hopefully helpful to the non-expert who would like to understand the truth behind certain contrarian talking points.

The last time the global monthly average was this cool was 2014, which at the time was the hottest year on record. See this link in case a longer term perspective is of interest. Note that the cheerleader now has her panties higher than she has for over 97% of her life, and she's been around since 1850. Assuming she's had her panties in the normal place for most of her life she's probably looking for a doctor to perform a surgical extraction.

After all, "Cartoonist has concerns about atmospheric physics" isn't really a story. Scott Adams does identify a problem: how can a non expert evaluate science? It is very easy for a non-expert to fall for credible sounding memes - especially if they are based on superficially true facts. For instance, a recent Slashdot article reports on "global cooling" article from Brietbart. They used two months of a land only subset of one tropospheric temperature record to claim "scientists ignore global cooling"! There is a nugget of truth here, but it doesn't mean what breitbart wants you to think it means. Even if a layman looked up that particular subset of that particular record they would possibly conclude that breitbart is right. A scientist on the other hand would know enough to quickly dismiss this.

Victor provides direct answers to Scott's concerns, but also offers tools to help a layman get to the truth. Well worth reading!

The ideal temperature is approximately what it's been since the dawn of civilization. Only for the reason that we built this civilization, (the farms, the coastal properties, the dykes, the infrastructure, etc), with that climate in mind. Transport all that to a different climate and it no longer fits. It's expensive to have to redo it all.

A) No, poverty won't kill us. Income inequity and the gutting of health, education and social services will kill some people—far too many, to be sure— but mostly it will reduce the quality of life for a generation or so. Undesirable? Yes. Deadly? Not for most people.

B) The reason for climate action today is not because it's going to affect us today. It's because every day of delay compounds the problem. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you're the type of person who changes their oil regularly and sticks to the vehicle maintenance schedule, because ignoring things until they become critical is costly and stupid....

C) If I have to carry B)'s analogy any further, there's really no point in even responding.

Not everyone assumes Trump is unalloyed evil. But Breitbart, on the other hand, is deliberately indulging in the kind of corrupt, amoral behaviour you claim that Donald Trump needs to deal with as his first priority.

[editor's note: Here is where the poster loses his shit at the willful blindness of this defender of the indefensible.]

In layman's terms, they fucking lie and lie and lie about climate change, and you can't get that through your fucking head. Instead, you defend the very fucking liars you claim are ruining this globe by pooh-poohing the fact that they fucking lied and claiming that the thing they fucking lied about isn't that big a deal.

Here's the problem with that situation: If you're so fed up with political corruption, why the fuck are you defending the very people who are perpetuating the problem? And don't give me any 'but Hillary' shit. I don't give a flying fuck about Hillary. I don't care if she's the devil. I am specifically concerned that you, sir, are defending liars in your paean to the need to end a culture of corruption. Because I don't fucking get it.

Layzej writes: It is easy for a non-expert to be swayed by a credible sounding narrative that claims to overthrow a scientific consensus. For a scientist it is generally clear which arguments are valid, but the general public can’t independently evaluate scientific evidence. Scientist Victor Venema provides answers to a number of concerns about climate science raised by cartoonist Scott Adams. His answers are accessible and illuminating, and hopefully helpful to the non-expert who would like to understand the truth behind certain contrarian talking points.